Which do you trust, God or science?

But remember Jim the topic of THIS thread is not science vs evolution - rather it is whether an evolutionist can TRUST God.

The debate on evolution will go on and on and on.

But just because someone sees Genesis 1 as nonliteral does not mean they do not trust God.

 

"The problem is this. The required distance from a to b is so small anywhere on earth that they use one spot on earth for one angle, then wait 6 months or so until earth is on the other side of its orbit to obtain the other. Then they guess the distance between the two points in our orbit, using these two infinitly small angles, they think they can "mathematically" determine the distance from Star "a".
You can readily see many problems with this formula. First, how do you know for sure that you got the exact spot in our orbit to get the first angle? Secondly, how do you know you got the exactly corresponding spot in our orbit for the second angle? And third, how do you know you got the exact distance from point a to b?
This formula works for distances where you can determine the angles, and the distance of a to b accurately, but when you are talking about such great distances it breaks down into a pile of uncertainty."
.................................................
The problem is with you, rather than with science or the astronomers. First you assume that all the measurements must be "exact". That is simply not true. No measurement of any kind is "exact" nor does it necessarily need to be exact. The two points in orbit can be determined by sufficient accuracy just by measuring time. If you take a half year, then the position in orbit must be exactly on the other side of the orbit - that is, it will be exact enough for the purpose intended. It is well known in science that no measurement is perfect, there is always a little error. Whether the error is significant depends on the use of the measurement. The accuracy with which these measurements are known is very likely good enough for the intended purpose. You have not shown otherwise. There is reason to believe that the diameter of the earth's orbit is known accurately enough for this purpose. You have not shown otherwise, for sure.

 

Based on what contextual evidence Charles?

If you say because of comparisions to other ancient mythology, my response is going to be that those writings were not inspired. God certainly knows the difference between a narrative and a myth.

Who told you that the form of ancient mythology should be the standard by which Genesis is interpretted?

If you are going to substantiate the "non-literal" claim you need to do it with internal evidence.

I would simply ask for proof.

But while you are at it, please explain why someone needs university training in science to understand science. I agree that it provides a short cut... but folks like Spurgeon taught themselves Greek, Hebrew, and Latin without the benefit of a college. I don't see formal education being a necessary limitation for having something valuable to say on this subject.

 

"May I offer an illustration of one of the absurditites of "scientific" calculations?"

Argument from incredulty.

None of us were engineers on this mission. None of us know the detail that went into taking the measurments. But because you do not know how experts in such areas could overcome these problems, you think that it is too difficult to be done.

Pointing out how hard something is to do is not the same as actually pointing out problems in the work.

"Then they guess the distance between the two points in our orbit"

I take this to mean that you have doubts about the distance from the earth to the sun. If you think that the distance to the sun is off, please present something to support this. Right now it is just innuendo.

"First, how do you know for sure that you got the exact spot in our orbit to get the first angle? Secondly, how do you know you got the exactly corresponding spot in our orbit for the second angle?"

We know the orbital time of the earth to a very high degree of accuracy. We can measure time to very high accuracies. There is no guessing involved. If you think otherwise then please support your assertion.

"And third, how do you know you got the exact distance from point a to b?"

See above.

We know the size and timing of earth's orbit to a very high degree of accuracy.

"Then they guess the distance between the two points in our orbit, using these two infinitly small angles."

No guessing for the angles either. These can be measured.

When making technical measurements, one important thing to know is the uncertainty in your measurements. If you look up some of the data, they will give you this uncertainty. Again, there is no guessing involved.

Of course you ignore that there are ways to check. For example, if you doubt the angles then you can inspect the position of the star as seen in each end of the earth's orbit against the background. The shift in position against the background can also give you an idea of the angle involved.

You don't like that, well then how about we just measure the intensity of the light. That is easy to do. The sun is right next door. We know its brightness fairly well. Find other stars out there that are the same as the sun. The intensity of light declines with distance according to an inverse square law. That is if you are twice as far away then the light is four times dimmer. So compare the brightness and measure the distance. If these measurements are so flawed then why to two completely different methods yield the same types of ranges?

Maybe the measurements are not so absurd afterall.

 

OK, I can see where you're coming from on this; not my belief, but it's not clarified either way, so room for honest disagreement.

Clarify this a bit further, if you will. I still am looking for that one piece of evidence that nails the unimpeachable "written in stone base" to proceed with the supposed "FACTS".
</font>[/QUOTE]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... any time we attempt to put on the creation of the universe is ultimately moot. God was the only one around and time doesn't matter to Him. If I were arguing for an old universe, I would simply point out that time was created for man, not God.

For this very reason, I find no way to reconcile an old biological creation to the use of specific time measures in Genesis 1-11.

 

Scott,

I do not think FORMAL education is always necessary. But it is more necessary in the sciences than the humanities just because of the nature of things. And I would not consider someone who's background in science is apologetics to be trained.

We've had posts and posts and more posts on the various issues. But I have a problem with the topic of this thread - namely that one can be said to not trust God based on his/her beliefs in evolution or the age of the earth. That point has nothing to do with the particulars of a given argument.

As I said I definitely trust God over any man. But that doesn't mean I trust the opinions of creationist HUMANS over evolutionist HUMANS.

 

av1611jim: "I am no mathematician, but I am not stupid either.

I vouch you are no mathematician

av1611jim: "Even with such exact sciences as Mathematics,
eventually it breaks down, because man is hopelessly finite."

Mathematics is not a subset of science.
Mathematics is more related to a language
than a science.

Spokespersons for science on
the subject of science are more reliable
than spokespersons for God on the subject of God.

Come to think of it,
Spokespersons for science on
the subject of God are more reliable
than spokespersons for God on the subject of Science.
Though this "reliable" is at a much lower reliablity
than the one in the paragraph above.

In the real world we do not have to choose between
believing God or Science. We have to choose
between believing the spokespersons for God or
the spokespersons for Science. As long as they stay
in their own category, one can probably believe
both of them. When they get outside their category,
you cannot believe either of them.

 

No Ed. God left us the Bible and gives us the Holy Spirit to guide us in its interpretation.

None of us are perfectly submitted so this is not a shot at those who believe in evolution... perhaps they truly are more submitted to the Bible and Holy Spirit than those of us who are YEC/OEC (no macroevolution).

In other words, God is a more reliable spokesman for both science and Himself than any man is for either or both.

 

When I first took on the responsibility of pastoring a church, the church did not have the financial means to pay me a salary and I had to continue in my secular employment to not only pay my own bill, but the bills of the church as well. After about five months God showed me very clearly that my secular job was robbing me of the time that I needed to study and be available to my congregation and that I needed to resign from my secular position and trust Him to pay the church’s bills and support me financially. Therefore I resigned from my secular position and learned first hand what it means to trust God and live and pastor by faith.

When the bills came in and the money didn’t, I laid the bills out on a counter in my office for God to look at. We didn’t have the money to pay the electric bill, but we still kept the church open with the lights on every night, seven days a week till midnight because many members in our congregation enjoyed fellowshipping at the church more than they enjoyed being anywhere else. And of course many people came into the church late at night, got saved, and needed a refuge in which to grow in their faith. But at midnight we sent the people home, locked up the church, and I went back into my office and prayed for two hours, reminding God of those bills lying out on the counter and praying for the needs of the congregation. One at a time I personally picked up those bills and mailed them with their full payment to those whom we owned the money.

I have a verifiable testimony that I trust God, but I also trust the scientists with whom I had labored as an evolutionary biologist. I cannot say the same for the “scientists” at the Creation Research Institute, some whom I have personally found to be dishonest.

 

Living by the above standard ain't a bad thing to do, you know!!

My comment has to do with the subject at hand--Ben--I was born at night--but it wasn't last night!! I know full well there is a wealth of information out there that can educate me in the field of science, history, economics, government, etc.

My comment has to do with--do you trust God or science---to which I can say that my faith and trust is in God---I learned long ago that the "Big Bang" turns out to be a "dud"---we can go on and on---but let me tell you one thing---I am about as far away from ignorant as I can get---blows my mind that philosphers can "comb the finest library over---obsorbing all the information over in their study of wisdom---and yet the janitor right outside in the hallway buffin' the floors knows all about it!!!

Blackbird

 

This statement is false. I do have a concrete basis for my belief that Genesis 1-11 is not a literal account. Part of that basis is the fact that the account of Noah’s Ark describes events that are physically impossible. If one interprets Genesis 1-11 literally, we have there an historical narrative describing events that we know for a fact did not take place. If we interpret it less literally, we can claim that it is a miracle narrative, and that the events actually took place through a series of miracles. However, there is not even the slightest hint in the narrative of even one miracle and to interject a whole series of miracles into a literal historical narrative does indescribable violence to the text. As Charles Meadows and others have written, the evidence points to Genesis being a non-literal epic narrative.

Your faith is NOT in God’s version, but in the woefully incorrect interpretation of the text by uneducated men and women. My faith is in God.

 

I appreciate many of the things you write but this is not one of them. If you have read the claims of the evolutionists long enough you know there have been many hoaxes perpetuated by them. Those facts have been substantiated and the hoax being discarded and never mentioned again. I have a friend who is a geologist and has drilled for oil who would not agree with you at all by what he has personally seen. I would not call him dishonest.

One question I have never received an answer to is if evolution is true and man came from apes then why do apes still exist.

My wife graduated in biology and would disagree very much with your position. Certainly she is very honest. Both of us went to a secular university.

 

I would think that persons with such a vivid imagination would feel more at home posting on a science fiction message board than a Christian message board.

 

Apparently you have been asking the wrong people your question—ask your wife! Anyone with a degree in biology should know the answer to your question. Indeed, anyone with a university education should know the answer to your question.

By the way, I never suggested that your wife was dishonest—she is not one of the “scientists” at the Institute for Creation Research that I said I personally know to be dishonest.

 

To those of you who accept the concensus of scientists as a reliable proof of what you believe, here is an excerpt from a speech given by Michael Crichton. The topic was global warning but the logic applies equally to the group think evident in evolution.

Emphasis mine.

Full text: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html

 

"One question I have never received an answer to is if evolution is true and man came from apes then why do apes still exist."

Well multiple reasons.

First off, the ape that amn descended from IS NOT still around. Man shares a common ancestor with the other apes but that common ancestor is not still with us, so in a sense you are right. The ancestor does not still exist.

But that is not even a necessary occurance. Now back in the 19th century when they had limited fossils to study, it was believed that most evolution happened by what is known as orthogenetic evolution. This is slow, steady evolution in which A gradually turns in to B which gradually turns into C.

Well, as more fossil became available, it was found that things aregenerally much messier than this. A lot of evolution happens when part of a population becomes isolated form another part. One branch can evolve into something new while another branch evolves in a different way and, say, a third branch remains basically the same. The pace is not very even. There are often not continouus trends.

But this is what gives us the diversity that we see. Back to the apes, through speciation from a previously existing primate, a line finally became what we would call an ape. Branches continued to form from this line resulting in the various apes that you see today. I could try and overwhelm you and start adding names to all these creatures, but I doubt that it would do any good.

 

This statement is false. I do have a concrete basis for my belief that Genesis 1-11 is not a literal account. Part of that basis is the fact that the account of Noah’s Ark describes events that are physically impossible.</font>[/QUOTE] So does the account of the resurrection... as well as any interpretation of heaven and hell you might believe in... as well as every miracle Christ did.

Your statement that the event is not "physically possible" is untrue. It is physically possible... but not naturally possible.

Metal flies every day. This is a natural impossibility but a physical possibility because intelligence and design have overcome nature.

No. You don't "know" that. To say so is categorically dishonest- either with yourself or us or both. You don't know because you weren't there.

You don't have to interject anything... including stating that it is a "fact" that it did not occur. All you have to do is accept that God by either an odd convergence of natural phenomenon or by miracle was able to accomplish what He said occurred.

Your faith is NOT in God’s version, but in the woefully incorrect interpretation of the text by uneducated men and women. </font>[/QUOTE]That is an opinion that is "woefully" unsubstantiated.

How many well educated men of faith do you need listed to refute your claim?

You know Craig you seem to have a habit of demeaning the intelligence and/or education of those who disagree with you. I was tempted to post some personal information to refute this assumption (and still might) but didn't feel comfortable since some would scoff and others might consider it boasting. The bottom line is that you betray the weakness of your position by the use of this tactic.

... and yes, it is offensive. You may or may not be smarter than Phillip or Jim or me. But to suggest that we are either ignorant or stupid for disagreeing with you reveals pride and arrogance- not wisdom.